Rail: Ontario-Quebec High Speed Rail Study

[unimaginative2]

Oh there's been lots of real planning. The big high speed rail study had detailed analyses of many possible routes. They recommended the Ontario route through Dorval. A Mirabel route wouldn't really have been political when the airport was operating. It would've benefited enormously from a high-speed link to Ottawa and Montreal, and its international-heavy flight mix would have been much more attractive to train-plane riders from Ottawa.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

^I've seen the work has been done so far for HSR. And while routes and recommendations were made it still falls severely short of the kind of studies and planning that would be needed to determine all the costs, benefits, negatives, and other factors that would be associated with actually building an HSR network. Issues of land expropriation alone will take a great deal of time and effort to work through. There are all the engineering requirements as well which when actually looked at in depth could have a large impact and cause plans to change. And there is also 15 more years of case studies of HSR operation in Europe that should be taken into consideration when planning is undertaken. Until a group of people can actually undertake planning that looks at every little detail and develops the actual engineering plans for the network the actual feasability of whatever routes might be desired isn't really known in full.

And Mirabel was always wrapped up in politics. It was an ill conceived idea that garnered both resentment about wasted federal money and from those who were displaced by it. It is the same kind of politics that will ensure no station will be constructed in Hull and will erupt when it comes to funding issues with the Quebec portion of an HSR network. Exactly the kind of reasons why I hope that planning is as far removed from political and beauracratic influence as possible and left to professionals who will make far more rational and logical choices when it comes to determining the best way to construct the network.

 

[MisterF]

Exactly the kind of reasons why I hope that planning is as far removed from political and beauracratic influence as possible and left to professionals who will make far more rational and logical choices when it comes to determining the best way to construct the network.

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but the bureaucrats are the professionals. Unless you mean consultants, but even they take the role of bureaucrat in a lot of their work.

 

[AnarchoSocialist]

^No, you are right. I should have been more specific. Obviously there will be plenty of bureaucrats from many ministries involved in the project. However, I think it would be unfortunate if the project was simply left to transportation ministries largely preoccupied with highway-centric planning doctrines. An agency that was seperate from the traditional departments and would be less likley to succumb to this type of thinking would seem appropriate. Afterall, a bold project should have bold thinkers and bold planning and be given every opportunity to implement the best, most forward thinking plans feasible.

The same is true for actually making this project something that a large number of people will actually be interested in and want to participate in and express their opinions on. It would be far more useful to have an average Torontonian, or person from Markham, Laval, or Kingston talk about how they might use a system and what would benefit them. So long as this is an issue only transit geeks care about then I don't see how there can be enough public support to actually make it happen. Though perhaps that is just me. If $10 billion or more is going to be spent on such a project then it should be something that most taxpayers actually gain real and practical benefits from.

 

[dowlingm]

What I think the Burlington derailment and last year's vandalism at Deseronto shows is the need for two routes at least between London and Montreal to permit service to be routed at reasonable speed around disruption. The single track GEXR diversion caused up to 90min delay for VIA between London and Toronto and the First Nations interference with the tracks last year stopped all Toronto-Ottawa/Montreal service dead.

That's why I'd like to see the HSR route go through a Peterborough/Highway 7 route to Ottawa while retaining and improving existing service in the Kingston corridor as well as eliminating single track virtually everywhere in the London-Kitchener-Georgetown route.

I don't think there's any point in considering redundant routes north of Montreal or west of London?

 

[urbanfan89]

What I think the Burlington derailment and last year's vandalism at Deseronto shows is the need for two routes at least between London and Montreal to permit service to be routed at reasonable speed around disruption. The single track GEXR diversion caused up to 90min delay for VIA between London and Toronto and the First Nations interference with the tracks last year stopped all Toronto-Ottawa/Montreal service dead.

That's why I'd like to see the HSR route go through a Peterborough/Highway 7 route to Ottawa while retaining and improving existing service in the Kingston corridor as well as eliminating single track virtually everywhere in the London-Kitchener-Georgetown route.

I don't think there's any point in considering redundant routes north of Montreal or west of London?

Not necessary. When was the last time France built a TGV line to parallel an existing line in case of an accident?

Just build the line separately from CN freight infrastructure, and fence the entire length with barbed wire to avoid blockages.

 

[dowlingm]

urbanfan - France builds LGVs which are almost all segregated from other traffic (except LGV Atlantique I think). In the Montreal/Ottawa corridor we need something similarly robust to make people trust it over the airlines. Barbed wire wouldn't have stood a chance in Burlington/Aldershot - it knocked down solid walls!

 

[urbanfan89]

Sure. Ottawa needs legislation to force CN to keep the tracks so that derailments are a one-in-ten-years event. And if possible make the line parallel to the 401. This way disruptions will rarely occur.

 

[RedRocket191]

Sure. Ottawa needs legislation to force CN to keep the tracks so that derailments are a one-in-ten-years event. And if possible make the line parallel to the 401. This way disruptions will rarely occur.

I don't intend to defend CN with this comment, but the law says that you and I have to drive safely yet there are still collisions on the roads every single day.

 

[ShonTron]

CN has had a bad reputation in the last five years for derailments, particularly high-profile ones in Alberta, BC and Ontario.

It's not about engineers operating trains safely, it's a matter of proper maintenance of tracks, switches and rolling stock.

 

[RedRocket191]

CN's safety record definitly needs to be improved, but derailments will happen from time to time, and sadly, they are two things which planners hate:

a) If they have an effect, it's usually because they are massive in scale.
b) They are completely random.

I agree that we should have dedicated lines for passenger rail, but not because there is a chance that a freight train might derail - because having dedicated lines will bring everything into the control of the agency running the trains.

... except, of course, the random chance of derailment.

Guess we're back at square one...

 

[CDL.TO]

There's absolutely nothing random about derailments when the trains and trains are properly maintained and tracks are kept clear. If derailments were a random occurence, there's no way we could build high-speed rail.

 

[RedRocket191]

There's absolutely nothing random about derailments when the trains and trains are properly maintained and tracks are kept clear. If derailments were a random occurence, there's no way we could build high-speed rail.

The point that I was trying to make is that nothing is 100% perfect 100% of the time. To expect that would be foolish. I use the word "random" to refer to things that cannot be predicted.

Even the Germans, who have one of the safest railways systems in the world, have had serious railway disasters.

We should build high speed lines, and we should take every safety measure available.

However, accidents will occur at random intervals, and we'll have to deal with them accordingly.

 

[JasonParis]

Even the Germans, who have one of the safest railways systems in the world, have had serious railway disasters.

Very rare, but true...

 

[dowlingm]

The rail line need not be shutdown by an accident on the line. Look at the fire near Danforth GO a while back for example which backed up trains on the Lakeshore East. It's dangerous to put all our eggs in one basket is all I'm saying.